Rep. Joe Wilson (the "you lie!" guy) is suggesting that Obama is only talking about attacking Syria to distract from the Benghazi and IRS "scandals". Because, you know, a week ago the news was all Benghazi all the time so obviously suggesting an unpopular military action was the best possible way to get back into the nation's good graces.

Had Obama just bombed the crap out of Syria, no doubt Wilson would be talking about how bad-*** Obama was

So more or less exactly as planned. You do understand that the entire reason to spend so much time publicly debating and thinking and planning about what to do with Syria is to generate the maximum amount of angst and public reaction possible, right?

What Obama Should Have Done: ...

Gee gbaji, its a wonder you're not the President, or at least something close to it. Where might we be today if only 'Bama would do you what you think he should have done?

There is no "fruit" Both Congress and the Executive know this. Any strike is about posturing to other minor players, theoretically to be an object lesson to prevent Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi from getting ideas or the like. Enjoy your googling, ignorant savages.

Don't be an ignorant cunt, dude. An attack on Syria is necessary to secure their vital hamster producing regions for the good of the west. I can't believe you bought into that ridiculous story. It's all about the rodents.

Maybe one day your feeble mind will be able to grasp realpolitik.

____________________________

“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

I would have agreed with his decision precisely because it sends the direct message "don't use chemical weapons". Given that this was the exact thing that Obama previously defined as a "red line", it would also be important for him to follow up on, if for no other reason than it strengthens his use of such language with regard to other nations (like, say Iran). I don't oppose the presidents actions because he's a member of the other party Joph. I tend to oppose so many of his actions because he so often takes actions that I think are wrong.

This is one of those cases. If his sole objective was to discourage/punish the use of chemical weapons, he should have simply ordered an air strike to send that message. The only normal reason to ask for congressional approval is if you intend to engage in a longer term action. Which is precisely what he says he doesn't want to do. It makes no sense on its face for him to do this. Unless the intent is to create the conversation and not really about any action which may result.

Come on. Lets go to war. After all, it is guaranteed. You don't like spreading freedom anymore? How about puppies? You like puppies? Assad eats them raw you know. These guys we wanna help don't eats dogs. Chicagoans might eat hot dogs ( with negligible actual dog content, but it is not in any way relevant to the point I am trying to make ).

I've got to wonder, mostly during bowel movements, if he seriously believes there is even one person around here that has absolutely no grasp of pattern recognition, or if this is all just him trying to really, really, really convince himself.

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

I've got to wonder, mostly during bowel movements, if he seriously believes there is even one person around here that has absolutely no grasp of pattern recognition, or if this is all just him trying to really, really, really convince himself.

“If I decide to vote in a way that’s inconsistent with those who contacted my office, I owe them an explanation,” said Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, who estimated that about 90 percent of the more than 1,000 calls and emails his office has received opposed military action.

“In all my years of public service, this is just about the most difficult decision I’ve ever had to deal with,” King told reporters Wednesday evening in Maine after returning from two days of briefings and hearings in Washington.

The office of U.S. Rep. Mike Michaud, D-2nd District, offered a ballpark estimate of 800 contacts on the Syria issue, with most opposed to military action.

Figures for the office of U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-1st District, were so lopsided they were almost one-sided: 1,134 calls, emails and faxes opposed to the use of military force in Syria, compared to just 21 in favor of U.S. intervention, as of Wednesday afternoon.

“Every one of the people I have talked to said in the plainest words, ‘Please don’t get involved,’” said Pingree spokesman Willy Ritch, who has helped answer calls in the Maine offices.

Representatives for Republican Sen. Susan Collins did not provide numbers on Wednesday but said most of those who have contacted her offices were opposed to military action.

Delegation staffers said most of those contacting their offices appear to be acting independently.

However, there are also clear signs — such as identically worded messages — that groups on either side of the issue are helping organize some of the feedback, even if those groups do not always identify themselves.

Not that Mainers are representative of the population in general, in this instance however it seems that across the map the public is overwhelmingly against any military action in . I can understand law-makers and more particularly military leaders assuming they know better than the average joe about what's best for the security of our country and out globe, but I wonder if they give any thought to the consequences that could be created here at home by simply ignoring the will of the people?

I wonder if they give any thought to the consequences that could be created here at home by simply ignoring the will of the people?

The people will think you're bad ***. A take charge kind of guy. A real decider.

My anecdotal experience is that many/most people know very little about this and just assume that talk of military action means "invade Syria" Iraq-style. Would they feel the same about limited cruise missile strikes launched from warships in the region? I dunno... maybe they would. Folks are getting tired of military adventures in the Middle East.

Yeah, they are. Seems that's what most of the legislators are justifying their 'yes' vote on, as war fatigue really isn't criteria for making a decision about entering any single particular conflict.

Honestly, I think if it had not been for the whole Iraq debacle followed by our continuing non-success in Afghanistan i might be more inclined to support this.

I'm coming to realize that I have to accept that Assad did indeed gas a bunch of people - civilians for the most part and has been torturing and generally being a really mean leader for some time.. I guess that does matter to me. The guy and his helper should be buried 10 feet under. I'm just so skeptical that we can make any difference, that we wont' make things worse, that we'll be stuck in a long-term democracy building struggle, that globally we're reinforcing our 'bully' image, etc etc.

I'm "in favor" of some sort of action against Syria but, if it doesn't happen, I won't be broken up about it. Conversely, there's a lot of people against military action who will be very upset if we go forward with it.

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

I've got to wonder, mostly during bowel movements, if he seriously believes there is even one person around here that has absolutely no grasp of pattern recognition, or if this is all just him trying to really, really, really convince himself.

That's a good question. So perhaps the pattern of me arguing for the same positions for the same reasons for years and since long before any of us heard of Obama should be a huge clue that when Obama takes a position or action that is in opposition to those things that I'm opposing him, not because of the party name attached to him, and not because of his skin color, but because of those differences in position. It's not a coincidence.

So perhaps the pattern of me arguing for the same positions for the same reasons for years and since long before any of us heard of Obama...

Right. Like wailing on about how much Obama hated the Constitution because he ordered strikes on Libya without Congressional approval. And, if only he was a Republican president, he would have done it "right".

My anecdotal experience is that many/most people know very little about this and just assume that talk of military action means "invade Syria" Iraq-style

Gee. I wonder why they think that? Could it be that Obama has chosen to ask for the equivalent of a hand grenade to punch someone in the nose? He can say "All I'm asking for is permission for an airstrike" all day long, but once you get into the War Powers Act territory, all anyone talks about is how much force, for how long, whether boots will be on the ground, etc. And that's the debate that the public sees and is reacting to.

So perhaps the pattern of me arguing for the same positions for the same reasons for years and since long before any of us heard of Obama...

Right. Like wailing on about how much Obama hated the Constitutionviolated the War Powers Act because he ordered strikes on Libya without Congressional approval. And, if only he was a Republican president, he would have done it "right".

If a republican president had done the same thing, I would have said the exact same thing. That it was a violation of the War Powers Act.

What's ironic here is the inconsistency, not on my side, but on the political left. Here we have a group of people who made "Illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan" their slogan for 6 years, but when Obama actually engaged in warfare without getting congressional approval, not a peep. This is not about an absolute position on the applicability of the War Powers Act and presidential powers Joph. It's about consistency of a position with regard to those things. My position has been very consistent on this. But for a lot of other people? Not so much.

Here we have a group of people who made "Illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan" their slogan for 6 years, but when Obama actually engaged in warfare without getting congressional approval, not a peep.

I agree with this.

Obama has played his hand well.

He's managed to expand his killing of brown civilians in oil rich neighbourhoods, whilst getting a good proportion of his support base to believe that he's 'protecting their freedom' (whilst comprehensively robbing them of it, and their cash), to the point where he's going to be allowed to enter a civil war on the side of the self same enemy that you all just spent the last decade or so believing were out to kill all Americans to death!

I've got to wonder, mostly during bowel movements, if he seriously believes there is even one person around here that has absolutely no grasp of pattern recognition, or if this is all just him trying to really, really, really convince himself.

That's a good question. So perhaps the pattern of me arguing for the same positions for the same reasons for years and since long before any of us heard of Obama should be a huge clue that when Obama takes a position or action that is in opposition to those things that I'm opposing him, not because of the party name attached to him, and not because of his skin color, but because of those differences in position. It's not a coincidence.

When Obama does something you agree with, you typically fail to give him much credit for it and go on about how he should have done it better.

Here we have a group of people who made "Illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan" their slogan for 6 years, but when Obama actually engaged in warfare without getting congressional approval, not a peep.

I agree with this.

Obama has played his hand well.

He's managed to expand his killing of brown civilians in oil rich neighbourhoods, whilst getting a good proportion of his support base to believe that he's 'protecting their freedom' (whilst comprehensively robbing them of it, and their cash), to the point where he's going to be allowed to enter a civil war on the side of the self same enemy that you all just spent the last decade or so believing were out to kill all Americans to death!

When Obama does something you agree with, you typically fail to give him much credit for it and go on about how he should have done it better.

Kinda depends on your perception of "much credit". I don't tend to fall on the floor gushing just because someone does the right thing. I'll point out that I don't do this for Republicans either. Have you *ever* known me to "gush" about anything? I'm a pretty reserved (cynical even) guy when it comes to politics.

Quote:

See: Osama Bin Laden

Precisely. Also, See:

Decision to invade Iraq

Want to know what both had in common? I agreed with both actions. Want to know what else they had in common? I acknowledged problems with both actions. Want to know what they *didn't* have in common? Failing to blindly condemn one gets me labeled as a fanatical right winger by Liberals, while failing to gush with joy for the other also gets me labeled the same way. The bias ain't on my side folks.

My anecdotal experience is that many/most people know very little about this and just assume that talk of military action means "invade Syria" Iraq-style

Gee. I wonder why they think that?

Because they pay crap-all attention to the news. Seriously, it doesn't go any deeper than that, scary liberal-conspiracy theories notwithstanding.

gbaji wrote:

If a republican president had done the same thing, I would have said the exact same thing.

I honestly and sincerely don't believe you for a second. And have never seen anything from you that would lead me to believe that you're being honest. Obviously I can't "prove" what you would have done in some imaginary universe but the history of how you respond to decisions made by one party vs the other certainly doesn't back you up or give any reason to lend you credibility.

What's it going to take to get you on board, huh? An ear necklace? Incisor earings? A glammed up skull, perhaps?

I'm authorised to offer you anything from our deluxe range of war trophies to sign up today.

You could remove most of my brain maybe?

Just ensure to leave me with enough basic functions to eat shIt from a bucket and use the remote control for the telly so I can watch X- Factor every week...I should be ready to support pretty much anyone who promises to keep me safe from all the scary people out there who want to kill me and steal my stuff.

What's it going to take to get you on board, huh? An ear necklace? Incisor earings? A glammed up skull, perhaps?

I'm authorised to offer you anything from our deluxe range of war trophies to sign up today.

You could remove most of my brain maybe?

Just ensure to leave me with enough basic functions to eat shIt from a bucket and use the remote control for the telly so I can watch X- Factor every week...I should be ready to support pretty much anyone who promises to keep me safe from all the scary people out there who want to kill me and steal my stuff.

Oh, the gbaji treatment? Yeah, I can set you up with that.

I can even throw in a abu ghraib mixtape, gratis.

____________________________

“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

I didn't realise it was called the 'Gbaji' treatment. But I suppose it must have started somewhere, and his relentless verbosity in the defence of idiotic decisions made by the sociopaths he identifies with should be recognised.

Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with their experience.

If a republican president had done the same thing, I would have said the exact same thing.

I honestly and sincerely don't believe you for a second.

Ok. Then let's not make this about me, but about you. Why is it that when Obama used significantly greater military assets in Libya a couple years ago, you were one of the loudest voices insisting that he was under no obligation to ask for a war power resolution from congress prior to taking that action, but today you have no issue at all with him insisting that he can't take any action without one with regard to Syria? Regardless of what we think about the war powers act itself, surely you can acknowledge that Obama's decision here is inconsistent with his decision then?

And if we agree that it's inconsistent, then isn't it reasonable to ask why he's doing it differently this time?

Why is it that when Obama used significantly greater military assets in Libya a couple years ago, you were one of the loudest voices insisting that he was under no obligation to ask for a war power resolution from congress prior to taking that action,

That was the thread how you pointed out how "Obama is the first president to engaged in a massive and ongoing campaign of attacks on foreign soil who has not bothered to get any sort of congressional authorization before hand," and how he "had enough time to put together a resolution," right? So tell us again how consistent you are, Vizzini.

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

Why is it that when Obama used significantly greater military assets in Libya a couple years ago, you were one of the loudest voices insisting that he was under no obligation to ask for a war power resolution from congress prior to taking that action, but today you have no issue at all with him insisting that he can't take any action without one with regard to Syria? Regardless of what we think about the war powers act itself, surely you can acknowledge that Obama's decision here is inconsistent with his decision then?

I already answered this: Obama is allowed by the War Powers Act to take action against Syria without Congressional approval if he desires (within the time frames, etc the Act allows). The American people broadly want him to consult Congress first about Syria and many voices from Congress on both sides of the aisle were calling for him to go to Congress. So Obama is acquiescing to go to Congress first. The way he is going about it is "inconsistent" but then the situation is different as well. The War Powers Act allows Obama to act unilaterally but it obviously doesn't compel the president to act unilaterally.

Why is it that when Obama used significantly greater military assets in Libya a couple years ago, you were one of the loudest voices insisting that he was under no obligation to ask for a war power resolution from congress prior to taking that action,

That was the thread how you pointed out how "Obama is the first president to engaged in a massive and ongoing campaign of attacks on foreign soil who has not bothered to get any sort of congressional authorization before hand," and how he "had enough time to put together a resolution," right? So tell us again how consistent you are, Vizzini.

Huh? That doesn't even make sense. What I'm saying is that if the president didn't believe he needed a war powers resolution from congress when he engaged in a longish term air war in Libya, then why does he believe that he does need one for a few one-time punitive airstrikes in Syria? The inconsistency is on the part of Obama. It's not about what I, you, or anyone else thinks is the threshold at which a president should abide by the WPA, or whether a president should abide by it at all. It's about a gross inconsistency in the presidents own actions in this regard.

The point I'm making here isn't about what I think the WPA requires of a president. It's that Obama's past actions with regard to the WPA and Libya suggest that his current action with regard to the WPA and Syria isn't predicated by a belief by Obama that he must get approval from congress prior to launching air strikes in Syria. He clearly showed in Libya that he doesn't need it, and the lack of consequences from that action confirm that he can do the same thing in Syria if he wants.

Therefore, his decision to push this onto congress isn't about compliance with the law, but about something else. And my belief is that the "something else" is his own desire to wiggle out of his "red line" statement without looking like he's wimping out. I mean, c'mon. A week of Senate hearings running on CNN (I think it was CNN) nonstop where everyone's talking about "boots on the ground" over and over and over? Media reports repeating the whole "OMG! Are we going to get into another war in the Middle East?" rhetoric? That was the intent. He was counting on this kind of explosion over this. He's hoping that congress denies his request. Doubly so if it can be made to look like the GOP blocked it.

The whole thing is a spin setup from start to finish. And don't get me wrong, it's probably a smart move politically. I just happen to think it's a terrible foreign policy move. He's sacrificing the last shreds of whatever international cred he may have had in return for a cheap political trick which may have marginal returns for his party in upcoming elections. Maybe. He's taken an easy foreign policy decision and turned it into a large and ridiculous political argument. And while his party is almost certainly going to come out looking better than the GOP (helps to have the media on your side), foreign policy should not be a game to play local political tricks with. I suspect we'll have to pay the cost for this someday.

I already answered this: Obama is allowed by the War Powers Act to take action against Syria without Congressional approval if he desires (within the time frames, etc the Act allows).

Incorrect. He's able to ignore the requirements of the WPA if he desires, and doesn't suffer any effect unless congress chooses to do something about it (which they probably wont do). The question really isn't about what the WPA says, but whether the WPA actually has any teeth. And historically, presidents have ignored it when they wanted to. Which suggests that Obama wanted to in Libya, but doesn't want to with Syria. Hence, why I'm not really looking at what the law says (cause it doesn't actually matter in this case), but about why he'd want to ignore it in one case, but not the other.

Quote:

The American people broadly want him to consult Congress first about Syria and many voices from Congress on both sides of the aisle were calling for him to go to Congress.

Maybe I missed the public outcry, but I honestly don't recall anyone screaming at Obama to get approval from congress before doing anything to Syria. In fact, aside from the usual pundits who rattle such stuff off every time (and are usually ignored), I don't think anyone even raised the issue until after Obama already said he was going to go to congress. Most folks assumed he would just secretly order air strikes and then come on the TV and tell us about them after the fact (like presidents usually do when engaging in some kind of punitive strike).

Quote:

So Obama is acquiescing to go to Congress first.

Acquiescing to whom? Not the requirements of the WPA, to be sure. And not to some kind of loud sea of voices insisting he do this.

Quote:

The way he is going about it is "inconsistent" but then the situation is different as well.

Correct. The military action in Libya was much more of the type one would expect a president to seek congressional approval for than the proposed military action in Syria. That's why I say "inconsistent" and not just "random".

Quote:

The War Powers Act allows Obama to act unilaterally but it obviously doesn't compel the president to act unilaterally.

Of course it doesn't. But that's not the point. The point is that Obama's prior willingness to engage in a much more serious and protracted air campaign in Libya without seeking congressional approval means that his motivation for seeking congressional approval in Syria (which he's claiming is a much smaller action) is not about complying with the law. He is choosing to go through extra steps. We can reasonably conclude that he doesn't really want to do anything in Syria and is hoping that congress will give him the excuse to avoid doing so.

If bombing Syria was something he wanted to do, he'd have done it unilaterally, right? Ergo, he doesn't want to bomb Syria. But he doesn't want it to look like he just chose to ignore his previous red line, so he's trying to get congress to make the no decision for him.

Sheesh! Does this kind of thing really need to be spelled out for people?